Residents air concerns about College Ave. Safeway plans

Dozens of local residents attended a community meeting Dec. 13 to hear the latest about the College Avenue Safeway plans. Photo: Emilie Raguso

Update, 5:23 p.m.: Via Stuart Flashman, “After another five hours of negotiating today (following up on two hours over the weekend) the agreement has been finalized. The RCPC Board (which has been primed for a vote since Friday) promptly approved the agreement by electronic vote. The other two groups (FANS and BPOD) will be voting tonight, but the community negotiators are unanimously recommending approval.”

About 60 community members attended a session Thursday night run by several mediators who have, along with Oakland Councilwoman Jane Brunner, helped broker a deal to get Safeway to respond to neighborhood concerns and bring negotiations to a close so the project can move forward after seven years in development.

The main changes in the agreement include reducing the size of the Safeway; bringing it down to street level (from a proposed second-floor design); reducing the amount, and setting limitations on the type, of other retail on site; requiring Safeway to provide enough parking for the new development; and getting Safeway to agree to pay for parking permits in perpetuity for nearby residents. (See the staff report for Tuesday’s meeting.)

Residents peppered presenters with questions throughout the meeting, which lasted for about two hours.

The Oakland City Council will consider approving a new design for Safeway on College Avenue on Tuesday. See the full designs. Source: City of Oakland

Concerns about store size, traffic problems, construction impacts on surrounding businesses and safety were among the main issues raised.

One attendee asked why Safeway hadn’t been willing to reduce the size of the store even more, despite repeated and emphatic community requests.

“Safeway is going to be exactly double what it is today. Why has Safeway taken a much harder position with us than they did with the Lakeshore neighbors?” the attendee asked Stuart Flashman, a land-use attorney and chairman of the land-use committee for the Rockridge Community Planning Council, who was one participant in the mediation.

“Because the Lakeshore people got what they wanted,” answered Flashman. “That was a real problem. Safeway is not going to make that mistake again. They wish they hadn’t done it and they aren’t going to do it anymore.”

Another attendee said he saw the “real Achilles heel” in the project as the intersection of 63rd Street and College Avenue, noting “a lot of traffic movement” and the potential for huge back-ups. The intersection is set to include two crosswalks and a three- to four-foot “bulb out” to make it more pedestrian friendly. The street will not lead directly to the parking lot, as it does now, but drivers instead will have to turn left to access a ramp to a rooftop garage above the Safeway store.

Mediators said traffic mitigations in Berkeley, involving timing the lights to coordinate signals where both Alcatraz and Claremont avenues meet College, for example, will make a big difference in area circulation.

Several participants in Thursday’s discussion raised concerns about a stretch of unbroken building mass, roughly 500 feet, on Claremont approaching College. Safeway initially had windows in the plans, then took them out; mediators said they were trying to bring them back. Residents said they were worried about safety there, due to a lack of “eyes on the street.” Mediators said they, too, were troubled by the stretch, and were still “struggling” with Safeway about that aspect of the design.

Mediators credited extensive community participation, including donations to the Rockridge Legal Defense Fund, petition collections and demonstrations by neighbors, with helping to get concessions.

One attendee asked why, after all this time, Safeway had finally been willing to listen.

“I think the reason why is that we would sue them,” said attorney Zachary Walton, one of the negotiators. “You can sue and ultimately lose, but you can still cause problems for a project. That was our leverage and that’s why they were willing to take us seriously.”

Walton said, too, that mediators were in agreement that now is the time to move the project forward, “because, in the new year, we lose Jane Brunner. The reality is that her role in the mediation has been instrumental. This wouldn’t happen without her involvement.” (Brunner’s term on the council is about to end.)

Walton credited Safeway with being “a good negotiating partner.”

“They weren’t before, but they’ve been a good faith participant now,” he said.

Members of the community negotiating team, from left: Stuart Flashman, Zachary Walton and Glenn Alex. Photo: Emilie Raguso

One resident said she was worried that Safeway would “do major value engineering, cutting everything worth anything” out of the development to save money. Mediators said they were sensitive to that issue and were working to hold the company to high standards.

Throughout the meeting, residents grumbled that the project continued to be “a pretty bad fit” for the neighborhood, described the process as “depressing” and asked if the deal might still fall through.

Mediators said they commiserated with community concerns.

“It’s not what we want but, on the other hand, we feel it’s the best deal we could get,” said Flashman. “If we had pushed as hard as we could for a 30,000-square-foot store, we’d be in litigation, that’s where we’d be right now. We might not get anything at all out of that. We might just lose.”

Mediators said, as of Thursday, they were still working on several aspects of the settlement agreement, and that they planned to sign it either prior to Tuesday’s meeting or at the meeting. They said part of the deal involved creating a way for mediators to continue to give feedback moving forward, particularly if changes arise with construction plans.

If the project is approved, mediators said Safeway would like to begin construction in October 2013; construction is projected to last about a year.

The Oakland City Council meeting takes place Tuesday, Dec. 18, at 5:30 p.m., at 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza in the council chambers in Oakland. According to a community email, the Safeway appeal is set to be heard around 6:30 p.m., but that could change if the agenda is revised.

It’s not about what the “people want” (all 60 of ’em). It’s what Safeway thinks the community can support (actual need) and the risk they’re willing to take that it will be profitable. No amount of puffing from the neighbors would cause them to violate those principles. Making nice is just part of the job.

The Sharkey

Wow, they already got considerable concessions from Safeway, and they’re still complaining? What a bunch of jerks.

Shannon A.

I’ve moved my shopping to the nice new North Berkeley Safeway thanks to this group of pathetic NIMBYs. No more taxes for you, Oakland!

EBGuy

In my ideal scenario, the Methodists would construct a 6 story residential building with a grocery store on the ground floor at the old Telegraph Andronicos site. Next best option would be an affordable supermarket. Even the current plan, a megastore CVS (currently reviewing signage [pdf alert]), should help liberate some of the Berkeley money that was headed across the border to the Oakland Safeway. That rooftop parking should look lovely.; they’ll get what they deserve. I especially like the lifetime parking permit bribe — almost as good as privatizing some of the public streets around the Berkeley TJs.

originalone

Some people just can’t be satisfied. This sounds like what happens when fishermen throw pieces of fish into the water and the sharks appear in a feeding frenzy. I wonder what the neighborhood would do if Safeway pulled out, like Whole Foods did in Albany? I believe that Safeway also owns the property, that no other grocery outlet can open in the same spot.

emraguso

This just in via Stuart Flashman, ”After another five hours of negotiating today (following up on two hours over the weekend) the agreement has been finalized. The RCPC Board (which has been primed for a vote since Friday) promptly approved the agreement by electronic vote. The other two groups (FANS and BPOD) will be voting tonight, but the community negotiators are unanimously recommending approval.”

Charles_Siegel

“Several participants in Thursday’s discussion raised concerns about a
stretch of unbroken building mass, roughly 500 feet, on Claremont
approaching College. Safeway initially had windows in the plans, then
took them out; mediators said they were trying to bring them back”

This seems like a legitimate issue. I hope they brought the windows back in the final agreement mentioned in the update.

Even if they get them back, they will likely end up with permanent ads pasted on the inside, never to be moved, because it’s still Safeway– basically a big box supermarket. They don’t need or use windows–just look at their existing stores. Heck, look at the one right there.

What they should do is line the street with small retailers, which actually need and make good use of window space. The Safeway can happily exist on the inside.

Shannon A.

So what further concessions did the NIMBY obstructionists require?

Howie Mencken

“…line the street with small retailers…”

Hear the Telegraph merchants moaning; “If all it took was windows…”

mbfarrel@comcast.net

Safeway actually proposed this for the North Shattuck store, but it was defeated by the local dinosaurs. Now they are fighting parklets and seem determined to keep the Shattuck/Shattuck Place pedestrian crossing to at at least 7 to 9 traffic lanes.

emraguso

The Oakland City Council has unanimously approved the project, with some interesting public comment — we’ll have a story coming Wednesday.